Poll of the Day > Is addiction a disease?

(+) Yeah! (+)

_AdjI_ posted...

And how do you propose stopping when the only thing that provides any sense of fulfillment is another hit?

By having a fucking life. If you maintain an addiction because your life is empty, you've failed at life in more than one way.

_AdjI_ posted...

It's easy to talk about willpower if you ignore that willpower is just a matter of neurochemistry, neurochemistry which is very seriously thrown out of whack by addiction. If you don't respond to natural dopamine, you don't have the ability to be motivated.

Develop shame, motivation outside of self-satisfaction. Make your life harder for yourself than withdrawal from addiction does.

_AdjI_ posted...

Remember that other topic where you were trying to assert that the sample size for pro-trans bathroom policies was too small to conclude that they didn't increase sexual assault rates? And then you waltz into this topic and base your entire suite of beliefs on the matter off of n=1? Something which you admit immediately after saying that you yourself are particularly resistant to addictions, thereby acknowledging that there is some degree of variance which likely played a role in that single subject who just so happens to share half of your genome?

I'm amazed you don't feel more cognitive dissonance than you do. You're so terribly inconsistent.

There's no study that proves that addiction makes you lose physical control of your body and forcibly re-use. I use my own experience as I don't feel the need to cite studies proving common knowledge.

wwinterj25 posted...

A drug baby that becomes dependent on drugs from birth can stop being addicted whenever it wants?

A drug baby can stop whenever its parents stop supplying, their personal addiction isn't even relevant.

wwinterj25 posted...

You are aware if folk have a illness medication is sometimes a requirement to get better and some folk can actually become addicted to said medication right? Seems like a rock and a hard place to me in that situation.

As I said, getting addicted is unfortunate, misuse is pathetic. Take the treatment, tank the addiction.

DrCidd posted...

Do you even know why they started calling it a disease in the first place?

It's because they realized that making people feel guilty contributed to addiction.

No, it because it's a disease. Any affliction that causes dis-ease is a disease, social approach to that is irrelevant.

DrCidd posted...

Addiction is a behavioral disorder, or a condition.

Turds who are "trapped" by addiction have a behavioural disorder, the affliction itself is a disease.
---

DrCidd posted...

Far-Queue posted...

There's more than one way to contract a disease.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

The point is, you don't become addicted by anything outside of your control.
You can get aids by being splashed with infected blood. Or other diseases from a problem with your genetics.

You can't become a drug addict unless you choose abuse drugs. Nobody ever became a drug addict because their genetics decided so, or because an opioid molecule was floating through the air.

Some have become addicted by someone spiking something
---

It's a disease and classified as such in medicine. Those arguing against it are showing their clear lack or education on the matter(excusable)or simply trolling. Considering the site we're on it's probably both.

If addiction isn't a disease than neither is diabetes.
---

How the addiction started is irrelevant. Addiction fits the literal definition of disease perfectly, regardless of your personal feelings towards it.
---

even if it was (it isn't), thats no excuse for not stopping. stop blaming your weak will on something else
---

I can't answer this poll because the question assumes addiction exists, which I don't believe is true.

Does kyuubi know he's resistant to addiction because he does heroin all the time and can quit at any time?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By having a f***ing life.

Having a life re-sensitizes your dopamine receptors? Have you suggested this theory to the medical community? Because they kind of struggle with curing addictions, and if it's actually that simple, you could save them a whole lot of hard work. Well, that or you'd be laughed out of the room for saying something that so completely misunderstands the situation, but hey, it's worth a shot, right?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Develop shame, motivation outside of self-satisfaction. Make your life harder for yourself than withdrawal from addiction does.

You really aren't understanding this. The drive for literally everything you do and any sense of satisfaction you receive from doing it come from the reward circuits in your brain. Literally everything. That "willpower" you're so proud of? Reward circuits, making you feel good for overcoming something unpleasant. Developing shame? Consciously acknowledging that your reward circuits are lying to you about one thing being good, and your reward circuits making you feel good about accomplishing that.

Drugs (at least the harder ones) interact with reward circuits. That's how they provide their enjoyable effects. When that use progresses to addiction, it's because that interaction has damaged those circuits' ability to respond to normal stimuli. The neurological process of motivation (which doesn't exist outside of that neurological process) stops working right when that happens.

It's not simply a matter of overcoming unpleasant withdrawal symptoms, like you seem to think it is. It's developing motivation using a brain that's lost the ability to develop motivation, which anyone who understands neurochemistry recognizes is extremely difficult

Note: Nicotine (the example upon which you seem to be basing your entire view on the matter) is not a harder drug, and it's not as addictive as something like cocaine (which literally takes the place of dopamine in the brain). Quitting smoking is largely a matter of breaking a habit and having the willpower to overcome withdrawal symptoms that largely amount to a couple of stressful weeks. Quitting smoking should not be considered representative of overcoming addiction to other drugs.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's no study that proves that addiction makes you lose physical control of your body and forcibly re-use.

What do you think controls your body?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I use my own experience as I don't feel the need to cite studies proving common knowledge.

Your experience has an N of 1 and several confounding factors that you've openly admitted to, meaning it's completely meaningless and cannot be generalized.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A drug baby can stop whenever its parents stop supplying, their personal addiction isn't even relevant.

You heard it here, folks: You can just force a crack baby to quit cold turkey, because who doesn't like neonatal seizures MIRITE?

Are there a lot of troll accounts voting No, or are there really that many insane people on this board? It's either Yes or the 3rd option. Addiction is already classified as a disease by leading medical associations, so unless you're in the field of medicine maybe you should accept that or stfu.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Does kyuubi know he's resistant to addiction because he does heroin all the time and can quit at any time?

Nah, from the morphine doing nothing and the hospital not upping the dosage further as they determined I was resistant.

_AdjI_ posted...

Having a life re-sensitizes your dopamine receptors? Have you suggested this theory to the medical community? Because they kind of struggle with curing addictions, and if it's actually that simple, you could save them a whole lot of hard work. Well, that or you'd be laughed out of the room for saying something that so completely misunderstands the situation, but hey, it's worth a shot, right?

Turns out fixing someone else's life for them isn't easy, if the sufferer chooses to be a turd, they will wallow in their filth forever.

_AdjI_ posted...

You really aren't understanding this. The drive for literally everything you do and any sense of satisfaction you receive from doing it come from the reward circuits in your brain. Literally everything. That "willpower" you're so proud of? Reward circuits, making you feel good for overcoming something unpleasant. Developing shame? Consciously acknowledging that your reward circuits are lying to you about one thing being good, and your reward circuits making you feel good about accomplishing that.

You really aren't understanding this. It's not to do with feeling good, you do the correct thing because it's correct, it's an intellectual decision sacrificing your current interest to serve the intellectual priority. A significant part of being human is the ability to act on your thoughts over your feelings.

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not simply a matter of overcoming unpleasant withdrawal symptoms, like you seem to think it is. It's developing motivation using a brain that's lost the ability to develop motivation, which anyone who understands neurochemistry recognizes is extremely difficult

Difficult, not impossible, and only applicable to long term abusers. When you destroy your body, you deserve what's left, if you run with further drug abuse then you deserve further mockery.

_AdjI_ posted...

Nicotine (the example upon which you seem to be basing your entire view on the matter) is not a harder drug, and it's not as addictive as something like cocaine (which literally takes the place of dopamine in the brain).

1) Nicotine is highly addictive in different ways.
2) Cocaine makes you produce dopamine, it is not a substitute.
3) Volume and duration of use effects addiction, this was an example of basically peak addiction.

_AdjI_ posted...

Quitting smoking is largely a matter of breaking a habit and having the willpower to overcome withdrawal symptoms that largely amount to a couple of stressful weeks. Quitting smoking should not be considered representative of overcoming addiction to other drugs.

It's pretty similar. Suffer some flu-like symptoms, crave what you can't have, wait for ailments to pass.

_AdjI_ posted...

What do you think controls your body?

Let me know when you prove that cocaine directly triggers motor nerves and intelligently directs you to more drugs outside of your control.
---

kind9 posted...

Are there a lot of troll accounts voting No, or are there really that many insane people on this board? It's either Yes or the 3rd option. Addiction is already classified as a disease by leading medical associations, so unless you're in the field of medicine maybe you should accept that or stfu.

To be fair, these are the same people that changed a mental illness in to a physical one to appease public opinion, their credence isn't iron-clad, not that I'm disagreeing with you.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

To be fair, these are the same people that changed a mental illness in to a physical one to appease public opinion

Really? I would have thought that at the time it was classified as a disease public opinion would have largely considered addiction to be a weak and immoral choice. The top results I found on google regarding research into addiction as a disease say that it actually changes the composition of the brain so that free-will and choice are highly impaired. Do you disagree with the research?
---

Misunderstanding mate, I'm referring to gender dysphoria.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Hopefully a mod will close this topic because your clearly trolling at this point and clearly have no understanding of the subject.

You sound like one of those SJWs who wants to shut down public speakers because you don't like what you're hearing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, it because it's a disease. Any affliction that causes dis-ease is a disease, social approach to that is irrelevant.

Using that logic, gas pains and broken bones qualify as diseases.

I'll go so far as to say addiction is an affliction, a condition, or a behavioral disorder. But it's not a disease.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Misunderstanding mate, I'm referring to gender dysphoria.

Let's be real and call it what it is. Gender Identity Disorder.

Something, again, that was changed because of feelings.
---

kind9 posted...

The top results I found on google regarding research into addiction as a disease say that it actually changes the composition of the brain so that free-will and choice are highly impaired. Do you disagree with the research?

I disagree with free-will, but primarily as free-will as a concept is debated so I don't think it's reasonable to be brought in to medical discussion. I'd reword it as highly impaired brain function afflicting pleasure and pain perception.
---

DrCidd posted...

Using that logic, gas pains and broken bones qualify as diseases.

disease
/dziz/
noun
a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.
"bacterial meningitis is quite a rare disease"
synonyms:illness, sickness, ill health

Gas pains could be considered a disease, not so much a broken bone, but only because we have a direct, more appropriate word already.

a particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.
"we are suffering from the British disease of self-deprecation"

A break would be a quality in a bone that would adversely affect the afflicted.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

but only because we have a direct, more appropriate word already.

Gee, is that so?

I wonder if there's a word like that for someone who is physically dependent on drugs.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kind9 posted...

The top results I found on google regarding research into addiction as a disease say that it actually changes the composition of the brain so that free-will and choice are highly impaired. Do you disagree with the research?

I disagree with free-will, but primarily as free+will as a concept is debated so I don't think it's reasonable to be brought in to medical discussion. I'd reword it as highly impaired brain function afflicting pleasure and pain perception.

I believe free-will there means the conscious ability to simply stop using. The addiction sort of takes that over, according to the research I found. I just want to know if you accept that, and if not, why?

I wasn't citing a scientific paper, but one of the articles I found on google searching "addiction as a disease".
---

DrCidd posted...

you can't develop an addiction as a result of your genetics.

Lol, are you really gonna try to claim this when addiction most certainly runs in families? Because you are definitely at higher risk for alcoholism if your father/mother/grandparents were alcoholics
---

Muscles posted...

Lol, are you really gonna try to claim this when addiction most certainly runs in families? Because you are definitely at higher risk for alcoholism if your father/mother/grandparents were alcoholics

You misunderstand.

If everyone in my entire bloodline were alcoholics, that doesn't mean I am. I am only an alcoholic by becoming dependent on alcohol.

Sure, I may be at higher risk because of my genetics, but that certainly doesn't make me one by default.

What's so hard to understand here?
---

DrCidd posted...

Muscles posted...

Lol, are you really gonna try to claim this when addiction most certainly runs in families? Because you are definitely at higher risk for alcoholism if your father/mother/grandparents were alcoholics

You misunderstand.

If everyone in my entire bloodline were alcoholics, that doesn't mean I am. I am only an alcoholic by becoming dependent on alcohol.

Sure, I may be at higher risk because of my genetics, but that certainly doesn't make me one by default.

What's so hard to understand here?

But you previously said you can't develop addiction as a result of genetics. A hard statement. Now you're saying you may be at higher risk because of genetics. So which is it?
---

DrCidd posted...

Muscles posted...

Lol, are you really gonna try to claim this when addiction most certainly runs in families? Because you are definitely at higher risk for alcoholism if your father/mother/grandparents were alcoholics

You misunderstand.

If everyone in my entire bloodline were alcoholics, that doesn't mean I am. I am only an alcoholic by becoming dependent on alcohol.

Sure, I may be at higher risk because of my genetics, but that certainly doesn't make me one by default.

What's so hard to understand here?

But you can be an alcoholic from your family and not know it for 15+ years just because you don't have access to it yet

You can be an alcoholic before you even take your first drink and all it takes is 1 to put you over the edge, when most people can handle 1 just fine
---

DrCidd posted...

you can't develop an addiction as a result of your genetics.

DrCidd posted...

Sure, I may be at higher risk because of my genetics

Contradict yourself much?

Your arguments are still garbage. Do you manage to dress and feed yourself daily?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As I said, getting addicted is unfortunate, misuse is pathetic. Take the treatment, tank the addiction.

Everyone has a opinion I guess but by your own admission you haven't been through addiction yourself and you don't have much first hand experience so really your opinions on addiction are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

DrCidd posted...

You sound like one of those SJWs who wants to shut down public speakers because you don't like what you're hearing.

Shit bait. Your petulance is showing.
---

kind9 posted...

But you previously said you can't develop addiction as a result of genetics. A hard statement. Now you're saying you may be at higher risk because of genetics. So which is it?

I'm sorry, do you need me to spell it out for you?
You can't develop addiction SOLELY based on genetics.
It requires exposure to the substance in question.

If you can't understand that, I don't know any other way to put it.

So, no, you CAN'T develop addictions as a result of genetics.
I never backpedaled, and I never contradicted myself.
You're just trying to find meaning in my words that isn't there.

wwinterj25 posted...

s*** bait. Your petulance is showing.

Says the guy who wants to shut me down because he doesn't like my opinion.

Again, learn to adult, my dude. We don't have to agree to have a civil discussion. "You shouldn't post, this thread should be closed." Is you trying to bar me from speaking on the subject at all. Which is childish.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not to do with feeling good, you do the correct thing because it's correct, it's an intellectual decision sacrificing your current interest to serve the intellectual priority.

And where do you think the personal assessment of the value of that "correct thing" comes from?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Let me know when you prove that cocaine directly triggers motor nerves and intelligently directs you to more drugs outside of your control.

You've never done anything with your motor neurons that didn't yield a dopamine release at some point down the line. The reward circuit is where all motivation comes from. Depressing it such that higher doses of drugs are the only thing that can trigger it means that drugs are the only thing there's going to be any motivation for.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Nah, from the morphine doing nothing and the hospital not upping the dosage further as they determined I was resistant.

That's an opiate resistance, not a resistance to addiction. Those are two very different things, even if it does make it significantly more likely that you won't abuse and become addicted to opiates (since they don't do anything for you).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

To be fair, these are the same people that changed a mental illness in to a physical one to appease public opinion

Because it's generally treated physically instead of mentally, perhaps? That just plain makes sense.

DrCidd posted...

Says the guy who wants to shut me down because he doesn't like my opinion.

If you actually read what he's saying, it's less because he doesn't like your opinion, and more because you're being very stubbornly ignorant and refusing to accept that you're wrong in the face of ample solid counterarguments. Most people with self-awareness accept that that's a good reason to stop talking.

shadowsword87 posted...

Go smoke fifty cigarettes and see how easy it is to quit.

I used to smoke, and didn't have any trouble quitting. Easy: Stop buying smokes and buy Nicorette instead, it works.

kind9 posted...

I believe free-will there means the conscious ability to simply stop using. The addiction sort of takes that over, according to the research I found. I just want to know if you accept that, and if not, why?

I don't believe that's compromisable directly, only that motivation can be diminished. As far as I'm concerned, something being difficult doesn't mean you have less free will and you are still just as responsible for your decisions.

wwinterj25 posted...

Everyone has a opinion I guess but by your own admission you haven't been through addiction yourself and you don't have much first hand experience so really your opinions on addiction are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

You being an alcoholic doesn't make you an expert in addiction, and in fact biases you toward tolerance of your failings.

_AdjI_ posted...

And where do you think the personal assessment of the value of that "correct thing" comes from?

Society at large percieving reliance as a crutch, and reliance on useless things as pathetic. Is your argument that junkies are junkies because they don't know they're the bottom of society?

_AdjI_ posted...

You've never done anything with your motor neurons that didn't yield a dopamine release at some point down the line. The reward circuit is where all motivation comes from. Depressing it such that higher doses of drugs are the only thing that can trigger it means that drugs are the only thing there's going to be any motivation for.

A bribe is not equivalent to physical compulsion. You can say no.

_AdjI_ posted...

That's an opiate resistance, not a resistance to addiction. Those are two very different things, even if it does make it significantly more likely that you won't abuse and become addicted to opiates (since they don't do anything for you).

Well immunity to dopamine spikes would suggest addiction resistance since your whole argument has been based on dopamine being an undefiable will-destroyer.

_AdjI_ posted...

Because it's generally treated physically instead of mentally, perhaps? That just plain makes sense.

It's not even treated though. It's equivalent to telling somebody with MPD that their other personalities are distinct people to appease their perception.
---

Why do you keep taking bait Adjl, do you have an addiction to being trolled?
---

No. There can be a genetic predisposition or mental health disorder that causes some to form substance-based dependencies more easily, while others just have a weakness of character or poor decision making skills. Regardless, no disease exists.

DrCidd posted...

-snip-

https://imgur.com/yF6ldZo

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You being an alcoholic doesn't make you an expert in addiction, and in fact biases you toward tolerance of your failings.

So now you're going to make stuff up in order to try and make your opinion any more valid? Interesting.
---

By the definition of the word I'd say it is. But it's a loose term and can be correctly applied to many instances.

I admit I have the disease: I'm often drowsy before my morning cup of coffee.
---

DrCidd posted...

Let's discuss, folks.

I don't think I ever met a drug addict who became addicted accidentally because the hobo down the street coughed on him.

Calling it a disease is just an excuse to say "It's not MY fault, it's a DISEASE!!!"

Okay, keep telling yourself that Methany.

What about the people who get an injury, are prescribed opiates, and then become addicted to those? How is that their fault?
---

Valiant_Kaiser posted...

No. There can be a genetic predisposition or mental health disorder that causes some to form substance-based dependencies more easily, while others just have a weakness of character or poor decision making skills. Regardless, no disease exists.

I suppose. But now were sort of parsing words. Yes a genetic predisposition isnt technically a disease but for the TCs purposes and the way this topic is worded theyre essentially in the same category. Something you can rightly blame the person for versus something you cant or shouldnt.
---

Humans are the disease. And many of them happen to be addicted to something. Because they are weak little mammals walking around in their meat shells....pretending they are unique somehow because they wear clothes and have cell phones. Following the impulses of their brains and nervous systems. Drinking, fucking, and dying.

They're all just shaved monkeys, pounding their chests, trying to feel good and claim a little territory for themselves.

Addiction itself isn't a disease.

The human condition is a disease.
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

What about the people who get an injury, are prescribed opiates, and then become addicted to those? How is that their fault?

Maybe I just have a high tolerance for it, but I've never taken an opiate to be able to cope with pain from any kind of injury or illness. I've had multiple fractures and broken bones. Suffered kidney stones, I had a dental abscess, many things which cause pretty serious pain. I've been prescribed opiates for a lot of these, but it was my choice not to get them filled, and to just either deal with it or take something over the counter.

Just because a doctor says "take this" doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of the consequences you suffer as a result of taking it. And it certainly doesn't mean you have to take it either.
It's their fault because they weren't forced to take it, and because they weren't informed enough to know they could become addicted to it. Again, this is placing the blame somewhere other than yourself.

I don't think addicts are weak, or weak minded either. They show just how strong-willed and sound of mind they are through the actions they take to get their "fix".

Addicts are perfectly reasonable people. Their lives are just so shitty that the only rational decision they can make is to "get high".

Calling addiction a disease is like calling poverty a disease.
---

DrCidd posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

What about the people who get an injury, are prescribed opiates, and then become addicted to those? How is that their fault?

Maybe I just have a high tolerance for it, but I've never taken an opiate to be able to cope with pain from any kind of injury or illness. I've had multiple fractures and broken bones. Suffered kidney stones, I had a dental abscess, many things which cause pretty serious pain. I've been prescribed opiates for a lot of these, but it was my choice not to get them filled, and to just either deal with it or take something over the counter.

Just because a doctor says "take this" doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of the consequences you suffer as a result of taking it. And it certainly doesn't mean you have to take it either.
It's their fault because they weren't forced to take it, and because they weren't informed enough to know they could become addicted to it. Again, this is placing the blame somewhere other than yourself.

I don't think addicts are weak, or weak minded either. They show just how strong-willed and sound of mind they are through the actions they take to get their "fix".

Addicts are perfectly reasonable people. Their lives are just so shitty that the only rational decision they can make is to "get high".

Calling addiction a disease is like calling poverty a disease.

Yeah were definitely not going to see eye to eye on this.
---

Don't cut yourself on all that edge, GreenKnight.
---

I think most of the medical field does treat it as a disease?
Source:
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease

However, let us take a look at this.

If treatment consist of learning to control urges, then it is probably not a disease. Maybe a "disorder" at best. Compare it to things like anxiety and depression where medicines can not cure you, but can make things easier. Those disorders are closer to "addiction" than a disease. I am NOT saying they are the "same", but closer.

Now, someone with a tumor(or disease), "needs" a doctor. No matter how much this person uses his willpower, his willpower is in no way a cure for his tumor.

I feel comparing someone with a tumor(an actual disease) to an addict(a mental disease) is unfair. An addict can potentially use "only" his willpower to cure himself, but the person with a tumor "must" have a doctor's treatment(or medicine).

It just is not the same... even if textbooks want to say it is, there should be a separation, at least in my opinion.

/endrant
---

I voted early when this was only one page. Votes the third option. But I would agree more with the first option than the second. Mainly because I would believe a doctor and science before certain random people on the internet...
---